Key activity 2 : Feasibility study
The second key activity of the Planning Stage is the feasibility study , a task carried out in the program planning processes . While a feasibility study varies with project context and scope , there are four assessments that are especially important for safer school construction and retrofit programs .
These four assessments are :
• Community
• Hazard
• Site
• Material and capacity .
Program scale may shape stages of the feasibility study . A regional feasibility study may be necessary for large programs , followed by another study at each community site . A local and informal study in the form of a facilitated community meeting and formal interviews with local authorities may be enough to establish the project context for small programs or single projects .
The school management committee , formed in the Mobilisation Stage , should play a strong , even lead , role in the feasibility study . Program managers should support the school management committee ’ s capacity to do this through identifying or providing local skilled people and external experts . They should also help by facilitating the planning process and / or providing tools and training so the committee can take action themselves .
Community assessment The feasibility study should start with a review of the immediate community context of school projects . At this stage the focus becomes narrow compared to previous stages . In the Planning Stage , the focus is on how the particular community functions and how the school project can integrate with other development activities and goals .
The program manager and school management committee should identify community policies and standards , including land use and planning policies if they exist . The planning and policy cycle of local governments may influence funding availability or where school buildings can be constructed . Similarly , if community development plans are present , the school management committee and program manager should consider how the school project might support skill and knowledge development in the school community .
A demographic survey may also inform the feasibility and scope of the school construction or retrofit project . Demographic data should identify the school population , the catchment area and any future expansion requirements . Where the needs assessment identified specific issues of concern , such as student access to school , the demographic survey may also provide clarity .
Demographic surveys don ’ t have to be complicated . A simple list of questions and a plan to talk with a certain number and type of people in each area of the school catchment area may provide sufficient information . Even when school committee members believe they can answer demographic and needs assessment questions , a structured but simple community assessment can ensure transparency of decisionmaking processes and build community trust in the school management committee and community-based approach .
Hazard assessment Determining the type , frequency and intensity of hazards to which a school is exposed is fundamental to ensuring school buildings are well-designed and well-constructed . Forces from floods , earthquakes and high winds that could affect a school building are often marked on hazard maps maintained by the local civil defence or other authorities . Yet these maps usually provide only a general understanding of hazard severity , and they may not even be available in rural communities .
Hazard specialists can survey sites to visually inspect for geological and hydrological features that indicate hazard exposure . However , local knowledge provides particularly important information .
• Local communities . Local communities have personal experience with hazards that occur over months and years . For example , community residents are likely to know the location of annual floods , rapidly eroding riverbanks , avalanches , prevailing winds and landslides . They also understand when rain , wind or snow make roads impassable and know other effects from seasonal changes .
Community understanding of hazards also has limitations . Collective memory is often limited to a decade or two because of lifespan , and usually is limited to a community ’ s immediate area . Community members also commonly accept their extreme exposure to hazards that routinely damage property and kill residents , and so they may downplay these risks . Parents desperate for schools and infrastructure are even willing to accept an unsafe school or hazardous location . In addition , climate change is changing the pattern and intensity of extreme weather events . Historic knowledge is no longer sufficient for predicting future trends .
• Hazard specialists . While hazard specialists may not know local conditions well , they can provide regional hazard information as well as quantitative assessments of a hazard probability within a given time frame . Depending on data availability , they may be able to define seismic risk and tsunami or flood inundation zones . In mountainous regions , hazard specialists like geologists can observe slopes and aerial maps to find evidence of past large landslides . In historic river plains they can identify soils that are likely to become unstable in earthquakes and liquefy . Hydrologists can explain patterns in rainfall and flooding over multiple decades and estimate how far flood inundation may extend from a riverbank over the span of a decade or century . Meteorologists can identify similar patterns for high-wind events and note landforms that can potentially funnel wind and increase its damage to school buildings . Climate scientist can provide some insight into future climate variability and change .
SECTION III : PLANNING
46